Ladervijd, my son served combat tours as a Marine in both Iraq and Afghansistan. My son is what the Marines call a H.O.G (Hunter of Gunmen). My son is a registered sniper #??? with the federal government. He has gone on many missions including the after math of the helicopter that went down in Afghan. August 7, 2011 killing Navy Seals and Army Rangers. I am informed by my son’s commanders that he saved many civilians and Military lives doing his job.
How do you assess those like my son with a legal license and professional training of their jobs? with “thou shall not kill”?
Then is a Jihad justified? with “thou shall not kill”? If their prophet is mocked?
“Thou shall not kill; (and whoever kills will be liable to judgment.)” applies to soldiers as well, as they (singular, and plural) can not go around doing harm as they feel ond think like, and even lost behind enemy lines it is better to rejoin with army, as a so-called cease-fire or peace agreement may have been signed, when there is no clear combat (which arguably is a form of rejoin though, that is rejoin of combat). As partially pointed out, “professional” training having a role, respectivly, similarly to what described earlier, the judgement being more-fold, e.g.: judgement of the one who (will eventually) kill before and after, judgement of the one (to be) killed before and after, judgement of the act of kill (before and after). There being overall and particular mission specs as well.
And a problem, as i partially tried to point out, systematically is when training/license, order/s, money, etc. are all issued by basically the same authority, that is e.g. dictator-style (e.g. everything for the “holy war” of the ruler/s).
“Jihad” and “Crusade” (both here in the meaning of war by Sword) are similar or same, that is that religious authorities and “worldly” authorities are involved, similarly to other matters of life and dead (at least historically at places). Historically on the continent of Europe, not everything was all rosy, also religious authorities may happen technically to be decadent or such, and there were wrong political games, but there was no direct monopoly. Nowadays, the United Nations Security Council is authority regarding military action (which happens to be mostly offensive even when defined as “liberation”), though the representatives thereof are representatives of the governments of member countries and therefore may happen to not be serving “G-d and life” but instead e.g. business profit. Or as example, imagine such Council in year 1939 A.D. with permanent members being fascist (and/or communist for that matter) countries and allies as temporary members, in control of media etc. Though, regarding state of things,
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_in_Afghanistan_(2001%E2%80%93present
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_War
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legality_of_the_Iraq_War
ratical.org/co-globalize/BillOfRights.html#5 etc.
somehow, apparently the U.S. (government) (and friends) are above the Security Council, and the (office of) U.S. president is apparently somehow Ruler and also High Priest in one.
With all due respect to soldiers who are soldiers, that is ideally “Citizen-soldiers”, respectivly “fellows” who are aware of the bigger picture that is don’t go around blindly following orders (e.g. for extra-judicial kill) in particular issued by someone in an office somewhere etc., respectivly to the “commitment of duty”, basically the “terms of justification” to Jihad, Crusade, Operation whatever, or war for that matter, are the same, that is that how a war is named and how it is depicted does not change whether or not it is “just(ice)”. “Self-defense” (with kill) usually being a thin line, that is particularly when it is within law and when not (and when not it not really being defense). And war is always questionable, in particular in regard to (interpretations of) “martyrdom” (where such is applied in regard to combat), “honour” (where such is applied in regard to combat), and similar. The “role” of warrior being a broader topic anyways, particularly reference to animals having to do with role as disciplined and trained listening to orders, and in reference that a human does not kill. Though, warfare as such having changed through times, e.g. “hide and seek” being a more modern form of warfare, albeit very similar to hunting by “savages” (meant neutrally). So or so, most “service-men and -women” on both “sides” (regarding mentioned wars) being basically young kids who have been more or less lured into the whole fiasco, with the “proudness of military tradition” t/here being about as pathetic as the comment of mine here. i don’t really want to dwell into these things (and particularly the roles therein) here as it is militaristic, and “spirituality” and “violence” are almost as two opposite poles. Certainly kind of respectful to those (individuals) who “fight” with proper ethics though, regardless of whether the “war/s” involved were “just”, albeit that all comes back to partially what we’ve been talking about here.
As for “mocking” in the context, in legal jargon there is “contempt of court”. in the U.S. there may be no capital punishment for e.g. insulting ond threatening a judge (in court of law), but when the accused does so it may contribute to whether the accused will be found guilty and to the type of punishment when guilty (aside of punishment for the contempt of court). Example (though very questionable as whether it constitutes as actual court of law):
guardian.co.uk/world/2001/oct/14/afghanistan.terrorism5
"Al-Qaida warning an ‘admission of guilt’ "
Anyhow,
“Thou shall not kill”, and whoever kills, liable to judgement, including own judgement with repentance.
Romans 3: … 10-18 …
